If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please note that in the US, one can not buy booze until one is 21. So it would seem that 18 years old is really "kind of" an adult, but not 100% so.

I was there when they dropped the drinking age to 18. I was also there when they raised it again to 21. They did not do it because 18 year olds could not drink responsibly but because a lot of 18 year olds were buying alcoholc drinks and giving them to under 18 year olds.

Let me remind you that the law right now is that anyone who looks under 35 has to be carded. So are you saying any one under 35 is not a complete adult?

To me, So far all the prosecution's evidence has been NON EVIDENCE... JMO

disagree. most of the evidence I have seen has been evidence to acquit. imo.

so much so that several legal commentators yesterday suggested at the end of the day that the defense might rest without putting on a case at all.

thats evidence all right. imo.

IF I PUT IT HERE ITS MY OPINION. apparently i have no idea when i need to say that in a post, so this should cover it....IN MY OPINION anyways,

welcome to the gates of hell JVDS.

Jose Baez: “I sincerely believe that when we have finally spoken, everyone, and I mean everyone, will sit back and say, ‘Now, I understand. That explains it.’”

Jose Baez to da judge :

".....that type of testing is unique. we requested that they be allowed to test items and that of course was objected to by the state and and uh the state uh granted or sustained their objection, denied our opportunity to have him test these items due to a very specialized field, subfield, of dna that he is one of the pioneers of uh in the alternative of we were granted the ability to test certain items by an outside lab...."

Glad you brought this up as it is directly related to the case, as it's been admitted ( in your link ) that the celebration was connected to this very trial....how arrogant and hateful...the whole family...doesn't matter who posted it, it's from West's family and his house, persumably... it's stomach turning imo.

Since when has it become a negative for children to express pride in their father. As far as their comment on the photo being related to the case (which it does NOT mention) "if the shoe fits" those who try it on wear it.

IMO - My point was that if your kid ended up dead (while he was unarmed and walking back from the 7-11) and the only person that states that your kid started the fight was the person that shot him...that scenario would cause you to blame yourself and not have any problems whatsoever with the person that shot your kid?

Originally Posted by Moonie

Off topic, but why would he be behind on his rent when didn't he and his wife get in trouble for lying about the amount of money they had in the bank or something like that?

I believe the money they had in the bank was from donations people sent him after the shooting. I guess it was supposed to be for legal help, IMO. As I understand it they were less than prosperous before the shooting.

If one can't afford an attorney, doesn't the courts provide one for you? Am I missing something? Why did GZ ask for money for his defense and people gave to it? He was asking (the public) for money to pay for his defense? Wow..

Huh? Asking for supporters and often fellow gun rights sympathizers for their support is perfectly acceptable. He should not have to use a public defender for a case such as this.

Folks have a CHOICE whether they want their money to go to GZ, unfortunately tax payers don't have much of a choice regarding the other people that get their tax dollars.